Election meaningless unless we change for the better

[Mark Leavy]

One of the my life motivators for making the right choices is that I always want to be in control of my life and to not ever put myself in a position whereby I become dependent upon others. And, don't get in my way!

Vinny

Brother from another mother, hermano.

[Kriegsspiel]

Yes, the switch from hunter gather to landed agriculture has enabled the creation of wealth that was up until that point not possible. However, it came at the expense of dispossessing people of their natural rights to inhabit this planet which is the collective inheritance of all humans.

In an idealized world, maybe. But in a human world, even hunter gatherers (H-G) defend "their" territory. There were a lot of H-G bands that got merced by bands with a bigger, stronger right to inherit their land

I'd argue that our civilization has created enormous wealth but more abject poverty than that of a hunter gatherer society. The condition of the lowest is much worse than it would have been had they lived amongst a tribe of stone age peoples.

That could be a good way to look at it, I think. Not that we've created more abject poverty than a H-G society, but that some people might feel worse than someone in an equivalent position in a H-G society. IE, that the (mental) condition of people now can be worse than people of the Stone Age, without trying to finagle it into some weird academic theory. There's a lot to be said about living among your family and closest friends in a tight-knit culture. Like the famous Bedouin saying, "Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my cousin against the world."

Then again, maybe I'm idealizing it a bit, too. I think we'd agree that mentally-ill homeless people are some of the lowest in our society. I could see some of them being a hermit-shaman in H-G society, but I could also see them being ostracized/killed for being complete dickholes to other members of the tribe.

Besides, wealth is a philosophical topic in and of itself. Judging by the general poor health, depression, purposelessness of much of our population I'd say it's debatable how much good all this "wealth" has really done us.

I could agree with that, but to play the devil's advocate for a second;

Stone Age H-G people fell into poor health, got depressed, and maybe even felt like they were useless members of their society (and maybe they were correct). But they simply died, instead of being kept alive in their misery by a benevolent society of strangers.

[pmward]

Not going to argue that our current government fully makes sense, or that it is ideal in any way. And yeah I "argued that caring for each other is the enlightened ideal" and the fact that I had to argue that stance precisely proves my point. Not everybody sees this "self-evident" truth. Look at our society and what do you see? People that would rather fight each other than work together. People damn near ready to go to war with each other, all in a battle for power. I just don't see the removal of government removing that underlying battle for power. But like my last post said, I do think we can evolve there someday. It won't be in our lifetime. But perhaps someday. And yes, if we could live in a society without government that could be truly free and equal, that would be the gold standard ideal. But for the moment we have to be realists. We can place the desired destination on the map, but we also have to be honest in assessing where we currently are, and how far we have to travel to reach that destination. And we still have to address the issues I've brought up in the present. We can never each that "enlightened ideal" without equality. That is the first great mountain we have to conquer on that journey. That's the mountain we've been struggling to conquer since before the U.S.A. was even a country. So, how do we conquer that mountain given the tools and rules we currently have?

I just don't see the removal of government removing that underlying battle for power. We can never reach that "enlightened ideal" without equality.

inequality is the imposition of power, removing (replacing) or reducing the size of the government lessens the amount of power that can be applied. you may very well never get rid of the underlying battle, some people are just darkly drawn to controlling others, but a reduction in government in most cases is just a reduction in their ability to get elected to positions where they can do so..

so how do we conquer the mountain?
- i have made it through my day in a way that generated no need for government, i imposed no inequality on anyone, i used no force on anyone. (bet you did the same .. so that's a start)

Here's the problem here. In the U.S. at least inequality is not just a conscious imposition of power. It is unconscious and engrained in our culture. If nothing changes, nothing changes. There is a need to intentionally fill the gaps. Do you really think that if we just ignore it, that it will go away? Do you really think the entirety of the population would behave in the same way? Really, it only takes one or two bad apples to put us back to square one. Let us not forget, Trump himself has enabled and brought more attention and influence (which are a form of power) to white supremacist groups than they have had in decades. Do you think that extremists like these just go away? Do you not think they would push for a power grab? To try to exert their will on society one way or another? It's not the average person we need to worry about, it's these extremists. There is a very specific reason why these extremists groups all support small government... because it makes it easier for them to assume power. Without government power just moves from one pocket to another... from a lesser evil to a greater evil.

[pmward]

I haven't read that yet, but on the face of it, I think Steven Pinker's formulation is a stronger argument (paraphrasing); WEALTH is not a natural state of man, poverty is. Nobody was wealthy until extremely recently. And only a few of them are. It's incredibly rare to be wealthy. But people were impoverished from the dawn of humanity up to and including now. The lack of wealth is by far the more natural of the two conditions. It's like it's related to the law of entropy.

I agree with this point. But it doesn't have to stay that way just because it was that way in the past.

As I understand it (Tortoise and Simonjester have already mentioned it as well), the founders were talking about the government securing those rights as in, preventing people/our government/other governments from infringing on them. So to simplify, your right to life means that the government can't kill you, right to liberty means they can't imprison you, and right to happiness means they can't fuck with you doing things you enjoy. But it can do all of those things if you violate the society; the founders were ok with the government killing, imprisoning, and fucking with the life-enjoyment of criminals. They weren't saying that the government's duty was to keep you alive, or help you take advantage of every freedom you could, or make sure you were doing things that made you happy and fulfilled.

No that is not a correct translation. The founders spent a great deal of time debating the very root of my argument, which is tyranny of the majority. The concept of tyranny of the majority was well known in their time, and it was something they fought over quite a bit. Parts of our government structure and the constitution were setup specifically to try to combat this. They were not only trying to combat governmental tyranny, they were trying to combat ALL tyranny. It doesn't matter if it comes from a group of people or a government; tyranny is tyranny; oppression is oppression. To only look at what they wrote in the context of government is too limited, and was not their original intention.

Tyranny of the majority itself is a tricky beast. I've made mostly arguments showing how if effects people that are in different positions than those on this board because I've been trying to get people here to step out of their conditioning and look at things from a different angle that they may not have looked at before. But I could also argue the familiar right-wing arguments as well. For instance, even if the government does not instill a mask mandate, if society as a whole deems it unacceptable to not wear a mask and shuns everyone who does not wear a mask, that is a tyranny of the majority that has nothing to do with the government. That in itself is a form of power that has nothing to do with the government. So just like I can argue the left side that oppression of minorities is tyranny, I can also argue the right side, that societal pressures, cancel culture, etc are also a form of tyranny. Neither of which have anything to do with government, thus neither would go away if the government went away.

[pmward]

the thing is "white supremacist groups" are a bogyman, the reality (more or less) is a few hundred backward holdouts with no money no power living in trailer parks playing dress-up in fancy uniforms.. no threat to anyone

the "red neck racist" (to a large degree) are not racist, they have lived and worked beside different races their entire lives are perfectly comfortable around them, they have an anachronistic and unfunny sense of humor and will make race jokes among their friends, but when actually with other races they tend to judge men by their character and not the color of their skin.. not racist

then there are the "cognitive dissidents" racists they understand intellectually that racism is wrong and will speak out against it and disavow it endlessly, they tend to be the emotional thinkers, middle class, white, suburban, but they are not comfortable around other races, they judge others on the (fear based) emotions and feelings. in a way they are the real racists, but at least they are willing to judge people by the color of their skin and help the "other color" people out by treating them differently...

of the three groups it is the last that is the most dangerous, powerful, wealthy, and the most likely to make a power grab.. and their policy's will be racist policy's to fight racism ? ? ?

Yes, and the last group there was the very group I was referring to when I mentioned that oppression of minorities are "unconscious and engrained in our culture". Many times, these people don't even realize they have these tendencies, they are almost reflexive. This is also a surprisingly large group in our culture. I can say I myself did a lot of soul searching in recent months and found some ways that I also was guilty of perpetuating some unconscious and unintentional bias. I think we all are guilty of this to some degree. So how do we fix our culture, so that these unconscious biases do not keep passing from generation to generation? You're correct when you say that this silent racism is the most dangerous, at least in our current society. However, I do think that some of the extremist groups have been getting more power from the attention and validation Trump has given them... and that these groups have been basking in and in a way flaunting that power. There is no reason to think they wouldn't love the opportunity to gain more power and influence if the government wasn't there to block it.

[Mountaineer]

Does a substantial portion of the population want a return to feudalism? The part that just wants someone/anyone with deep pockets to take care of them in return for slavish loyalty, regardless of what is best for the nation?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feudalism

"The terms feudalism and feudal system were generally applied to the early and central Middle Ages—the period from the 5th century, when central political authority in the Western empire disappeared, to the 12th century, when kingdoms began to emerge as effective centralized units of government. For a relatively brief period, from the mid-8th to the early 9th century, the Carolingian rulers, especially Pippin (reigned 751–768) and Charlemagne (reigned 768/771–814), had remarkable success in creating and maintaining a relatively unified empire. Before and afterward, however, political units were fragmented and political authority diffused. The mightier of the later Carolingians attempted to regulate local magnates and enlist them in their service, but the power of local elites was never effaced. In the absence of forceful kings and emperors, local lords expanded the territory subject to them and intensified their control over the people living there."

[pmward]

Does a substantial portion of the population want a return to feudalism? The part that just wants someone/anyone with deep pockets to take care of them in return for slavish loyalty, regardless of what is best for the nation?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feudalism

"The terms feudalism and feudal system were generally applied to the early and central Middle Ages—the period from the 5th century, when central political authority in the Western empire disappeared, to the 12th century, when kingdoms began to emerge as effective centralized units of government. For a relatively brief period, from the mid-8th to the early 9th century, the Carolingian rulers, especially Pippin (reigned 751–768) and Charlemagne (reigned 768/771–814), had remarkable success in creating and maintaining a relatively unified empire. Before and afterward, however, political units were fragmented and political authority diffused. The mightier of the later Carolingians attempted to regulate local magnates and enlist them in their service, but the power of local elites was never effaced. In the absence of forceful kings and emperors, local lords expanded the territory subject to them and intensified their control over the people living there."

I would argue that the libertarian view of local self governing would tend to lean more towards feudalism than a larger federal government. It's the local leaders that were the problem in feudalism, not the overarching government. There are more similarities here between feudalism and libertarianism, than feudalism and the Federal policies the "left" support. In a way, you actually strengthened my argument with this share.

[Mountaineer]

Does a substantial portion of the population want a return to feudalism? The part that just wants someone/anyone with deep pockets to take care of them in return for slavish loyalty, regardless of what is best for the nation?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feudalism

"The terms feudalism and feudal system were generally applied to the early and central Middle Ages—the period from the 5th century, when central political authority in the Western empire disappeared, to the 12th century, when kingdoms began to emerge as effective centralized units of government. For a relatively brief period, from the mid-8th to the early 9th century, the Carolingian rulers, especially Pippin (reigned 751–768) and Charlemagne (reigned 768/771–814), had remarkable success in creating and maintaining a relatively unified empire. Before and afterward, however, political units were fragmented and political authority diffused. The mightier of the later Carolingians attempted to regulate local magnates and enlist them in their service, but the power of local elites was never effaced. In the absence of forceful kings and emperors, local lords expanded the territory subject to them and intensified their control over the people living there."

I would argue that the libertarian view of local self governing would tend to lean more towards feudalism than a larger federal government. It's the local leaders that were the problem in feudalism, not the overarching government. There are more similarities here between feudalism and libertarianism, than feudalism and the Federal policies the "left" support. In a way, you actually strengthened my argument with this share.

I agree with you to a large degree. My main point was people wanting the "deep pockets", what ever size they may be, to take care of them in return for slavish loyalty. I also think the definition of "local" today varies widely and can be much bigger than what it was in feudal times. E.g. Is "local" your home, your neighborhood, your town, your city, your county, your state, your country, your world, your ethnic group, your social constructed entity, your ........? Today's feudalism might even be ones political party in one of the above "localities" - vote for them and they will take care of your every need, just don't try to support another "locality" (i.e. feudal boundary physical or ideological location) or their version of the pc police will come after you with a vengance. Thus, my question above about are there lots of people perhaps wanting the modern version of feudalism?

[pmward]

Does a substantial portion of the population want a return to feudalism? The part that just wants someone/anyone with deep pockets to take care of them in return for slavish loyalty, regardless of what is best for the nation?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feudalism

"The terms feudalism and feudal system were generally applied to the early and central Middle Ages—the period from the 5th century, when central political authority in the Western empire disappeared, to the 12th century, when kingdoms began to emerge as effective centralized units of government. For a relatively brief period, from the mid-8th to the early 9th century, the Carolingian rulers, especially Pippin (reigned 751–768) and Charlemagne (reigned 768/771–814), had remarkable success in creating and maintaining a relatively unified empire. Before and afterward, however, political units were fragmented and political authority diffused. The mightier of the later Carolingians attempted to regulate local magnates and enlist them in their service, but the power of local elites was never effaced. In the absence of forceful kings and emperors, local lords expanded the territory subject to them and intensified their control over the people living there."

I would argue that the libertarian view of local self governing would tend to lean more towards feudalism than a larger federal government. It's the local leaders that were the problem in feudalism, not the overarching government. There are more similarities here between feudalism and libertarianism, than feudalism and the Federal policies the "left" support. In a way, you actually strengthened my argument with this share.

I agree with you to a large degree. My main point was people wanting the "deep pockets", what ever size they may be, to take care of them in return for slavish loyalty. I also think the definition of "local" today varies widely and can be much bigger than what it was in feudal times. E.g. Is "local" your home, your neighborhood, your town, your city, your county, your state, your country, your world, your ethnic group, your social constructed entity, your ........? Today's feudalism might even be ones political party in one of the above "localities" - vote for them and they will take care of your every need, just don't try to support another "locality" (i.e. feudal boundary physical or ideological location) or their version of the pc police will come after you with a vengance. Thus, my question above about are there lots of people perhaps wanting the modern version of feudalism?

Yep, fair point. I would say I agree with that. It would be interesting to see how the divide would happen initially. I think on the libertarian side it likely would be something like republican vs democrat. You would have a mass exodus of people away from areas that they were the political minority to places they were the political majority. But from there, you would wind up with the situation where the people with the most capital became the "lords" simply because they have the money and can supply the jobs. This would give them power over those that needed to work for the money. It would also lead to the same feudalistic tendency towards power being genetic instead of earned. Where it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for the working class "peasants" to rise up to being a "lord", and the money (and power) would pass from generation to generation through family lines in each of these locales. Over a few generations I do believe it would devolve into a form of feudalism.

To your point about people wanting the "deep pockets" I would totally agree that most American's vote for whatever side they believe will financially advantage them the most. They don't really think about the big philosophical questions we've been debating here. It's just, hey this guy promises me money, or that guy promises me a tax break, or that guy is going to tax me more, etc as the sole decision. It turns into basically a system of politicians buying votes.

[pmward]

then there are the "cognitive dissidents" racists they understand intellectually that racism is wrong and will speak out against it and disavow it endlessly, they tend to be the emotional thinkers, middle class, white, suburban, but they are not comfortable around other races, they judge others on the (fear based) emotions and feelings. in a way they are the real racists, but at least they are willing to judge people by the color of their skin and help the "other color" people out by treating them differently...

of the three groups it is the last that is the most dangerous, powerful, wealthy, and the most likely to make a power grab.. and their policy's will be racist policy's to fight racism ? ? ?

Yes, and the last group there was the very group I was referring to when I mentioned that oppression of minorities are "unconscious and engrained in our culture". Many times, these people don't even realize they have these tendencies, they are almost reflexive. This is also a surprisingly large group in our culture.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's not race that bothers the white suburbanites, but class? That is, they have no problem with comparably wealthy blacks and hispanics and <insert other 'marginalized' group> who also take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools, but when you throw a bunch of section 8 housing into the mix with hooligans, gangs and disruptive students all of a sudden they're not so happy?

Classism in general is an issue. Any "lower class" person would be in the category of "minorities" in all the arguments I've made throughout this entire thread. I've never once said race was the only division. Intolerance is intolerance. If people that are "middle" or "upper" class feel that they are more right or more valuable than those that are in a "lower" class, that is a problem. The fact that you just generalized "lower class" people as "hooligans, gangs, and disruptive students" that do not take care of their property or contribute positively to schools is a very example of the "unconscious bias" and intolerance I've been pushing against.

[pmward]

There are plenty of people that come out of "lower class" neighborhoods that turn into successful, productive members of society that live in nice areas, take care of their house, are educated, etc. Matter of fact, you're speaking to one of them right now. I grew up in a "lower class" Detroit family.

[Tortoise]

The hypocrisy of people who criticize classism is quite amusing, because the vast majority of them participate in it by living in neighborhoods with the best schools for their kids. They don't voluntarily live in the ghetto to align with their outwardly professed virtue if they can afford not to.

Almost everyone self-segregates based on class, including most people who criticize classism.

[pmward]

The hypocrisy of people who criticize classism is quite amusing, because the vast majority of them participate in it by living in neighborhoods with the best schools for their kids. They don't voluntarily live in the ghetto to align with their outwardly professed virtue if they can afford not to.

Almost everyone self-segregates based on class, including most people who criticize classism.

Nice strawman!

[pmward]

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.

It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".

[Mountaineer]

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.

It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".

“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?

[pmward]

Let do a little thought experiment here. I'll choose a topic that is a bit less touchy so we can discuss a bit more freely. Let's look at the generalizations of liberals and conservatives out there. I see these generalizations being basically weaponized online these days. The popular generalization is that all liberals are lazy, unproductive, snowflake, whiners that only want a handout. The popular generalization of conservatives is that they are all old, rich, assault rifle toting, racist men. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives here. How many here fit all, or even most of the criteria of these generalizations? Not many, if any. But these generalizations are used as a weapon by both sides, to put themselves in a higher position than the other. They are meant to discredit the other. They are meant to hold the competition back. They are meant to insinuate that if those people are all those negative qualities, you are not, therefore you are better and more valuable than them. And lots of people actually do buy into these stereotypes and truly believe them. It promotes hate, separation, and discrimination.

[pmward]

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.

It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".

No, I dislike trashy white people as much as ghetto POC. If you're bad for the neighborhood, I don't care what color you are, I don't want you there. That's not racist, that's classist.

And I've already said there is no difference. Classist is just as evil as racist.

[pmward]

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.

It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".

“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?

If someone is judged by their stereotype and not by the content of their character, especially en masse throughout society, then yes they are a victim.

[Mountaineer]

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.

It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".

“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?

If someone is judged by their stereotype and not by the content of their character, especially en masse throughout society, then yes they are a victim.

That appears to be quite a judgmental statement. What external standard do you use to make that judgment? I think we’re in a circular argument.

[pmward]

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.

It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".

“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?

If someone is judged by their stereotype and not by the content of their character, especially en masse throughout society, then yes they are a victim.

I am judging them by their character. People with character don't act in ways that make you not want them as neighbors.

No, you did not judge an individual for their character. You judged an entire class of people based on the actions of a few. It's ok to say "I don't want people in my neighborhood that will cause crime, property destruction, etc" but it's not ok to say I don't want lower class people in my neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students"

[Tortoise]

The hypocrisy of people who criticize classism is quite amusing, because the vast majority of them participate in it by living in neighborhoods with the best schools for their kids. They don't voluntarily live in the ghetto to align with their outwardly professed virtue if they can afford not to.

Almost everyone self-segregates based on class, including most people who criticize classism.

Nice strawman!

My apologies for mischaracterizing you. I didn't realize you voluntarily live in a ghetto despite being able to afford a higher-class neighborhood.

Sarcasm aside, I'm assuming you live in a fairly decent neighborhood. Would you ever consider moving to a ghetto to "put your money where your mouth is" and confirm that stereotyping low-class people as a group is unfair and inaccurate?

[pmward]

The hypocrisy of people who criticize classism is quite amusing, because the vast majority of them participate in it by living in neighborhoods with the best schools for their kids. They don't voluntarily live in the ghetto to align with their outwardly professed virtue if they can afford not to.

Almost everyone self-segregates based on class, including most people who criticize classism.

Nice strawman!

My apologies for mischaracterizing you. I didn't realize you voluntarily live in a ghetto despite being able to afford a higher-class neighborhood.

Sarcasm aside, I'm assuming you live in a fairly decent neighborhood. Would you ever consider moving to a ghetto to "put your money where your mouth is" and confirm that stereotyping low-class people as a group is unfair and inaccurate?

This is the key point I'm trying to hammer home with MangoMan. There is a difference between saying "I want to live in a nice neighborhood" or "I don't want to live in an area with a lot of crime" and saying "every person that lives in that area is a criminal". Some of the people are criminals in any area you go to... no matter how nice it is. But not every person in any area is a criminal. So to broadly judge every person in an area as anything is false. Even to judge all the people that live in a nice part of town as rich is going to be false, there are going to be some people living on debt alone with a negative or very small net worth. I have friends that live in ritzy Scottsdale houses, getting brand new BMW's and Teslas every year or two, wearing all designer clothes, and not a dimes worth of net worth because of all their debt. There may even be criminals in that nice part of town. You cannot ever assume anything based on where someone lives.

[Tortoise]

This is the key point I'm trying to hammer home with MangoMan. There is a difference between saying "I want to live in a nice neighborhood" or "I don't want to live in an area with a lot of crime" and saying "every person that lives in that area is a criminal". Some of the people are criminals in any area you go to... no matter how nice it is. But not every person in any area is a criminal. So to broadly judge every person in an area as anything is false. Even to judge all the people that live in a nice part of town as rich is going to be false, there are going to be some people living there that are living there on debt alone with a negative or very small net worth. There may even be criminals in that nice part of town. You cannot ever assume anything based on where someone lives.

I agree with all of that. But if I choose to buy a house in a nice neighborhood so that I can avoid sending my kid to a school with lots of problematic kids (vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent, whatever), that doesn't mean I think every kid at the bad school is problematic. Some of them may be quite exemplary.

Neither pug nor I claimed in this thread that "every person" that lives in a low-class neighborhood exhibits low-class behavior. We're saying that many people in low-class neighborhoods exhibit low-class behavior, and that's enough to dissuade us from living there and sending our kids to those schools. So you seem to be shooting down an "every person" claim that neither of us made, which is -- funny enough -- a strawman fallacy just like the one you accused me of in an earlier post.

[pmward]

This is the key point I'm trying to hammer home with MangoMan. There is a difference between saying "I want to live in a nice neighborhood" or "I don't want to live in an area with a lot of crime" and saying "every person that lives in that area is a criminal". Some of the people are criminals in any area you go to... no matter how nice it is. But not every person in any area is a criminal. So to broadly judge every person in an area as anything is false. Even to judge all the people that live in a nice part of town as rich is going to be false, there are going to be some people living there that are living there on debt alone with a negative or very small net worth. There may even be criminals in that nice part of town. You cannot ever assume anything based on where someone lives.

I agree with all of that. But if I choose to buy a house in a nice neighborhood so that I can avoid sending my kid to a school with lots of problematic kids (vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent, whatever), that doesn't mean I think every kid at the bad school is problematic. Some of them may be quite exemplary.

Neither pug nor I claimed in this thread that "every person" that lives in a low-class neighborhood exhibits low-class behavior. We're saying that many people in low-class neighborhoods exhibit low-class behavior, and that's enough to dissuade us from living there and sending our kids to those schools. So you seem to be shooting down an "every person" claim that neither of us made, which is -- funny enough -- a strawman fallacy just like the one you accused me of in an earlier post.

No, go re-read the quote that pug made that started this whole thing. He said he didn't want "lower class" people in his neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students". Not every poor person doesn't take care of their property. Not every poor person is a hooligan, gangbanger, causing problems at school. You jumped in on that discussion between me and him mid-stream and started trying to twist what I was saying into something else entirely. I'm not telling people that if they choose to live in a nice, low crime area that they are classist. I'm saying that attributing those negative stereotypical traits to all poor people is not only false, it is incredibly harmful. It's ok to judge a criminal as a criminal. It's ok to judge a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen as a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen. It's not ok to judge an entire group of people as these things.

[Tortoise]

No, go re-read the quote that pug made that started this whole thing. He said he didn't want "lower class" people in his neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students". Not every poor person doesn't take care of their property. Not every poor person is a hooligan, gangbanger, causing problems at school. You jumped in on that discussion between me and him mid-stream and started trying to twist what I was saying into something else entirely. I'm not telling people that if they choose to live in a nice, low crime area that they are classist. I'm saying that attributing those negative stereotypical traits to all poor people is not only false, it is incredibly harmful. It's ok to judge a criminal as a criminal. It's ok to judge a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen as a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen. It's not ok to judge an entire group of people as these things.

Fair enough, I think I understand the distinction now. You're saying something like the following:

Okay: I'd rather not live in that low-class neighborhood, because many of the people who live there exhibit low-class behaviors.

Not okay: I currently live in a nice neighborhood and dislike the fact that someone who appears to be low-class just moved into this neighborhood, because although I haven't seen them exhibit low-class behavior yet, I'm assuming they're likely to.

If that's roughly what you're saying, then I'm completely on board with that.